5 ms·

A privately-held strategic advantage?

by bagful 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
Offloading the risk on private players, reduces the amount of government investment required, and shields them from any criticism, should the project fail. Also, if it is that strategically important, the government can just buy SpaceX.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  They probably wouldn't have to buy them, if there's a war on they probably have enough legal tools to just require SpaceX to sell them whatever capabilities they have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
roywiggins 3y ago
It doesn't really matter who owns it as long as it can be bent towards national goals when it matters. American vehicle manufacturing was a strategic advantage during WWII because they swiftly pivoted to selling tanks to the government instead of cars to civilians.
- forgot-im-old 3y ago
  It's already been bent towards missile defense https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
dotnet00 3y ago
Plenty of US strategic advantages are privately held or otherwise very dependent on the private sector. It's fine because the company can't really leave the US.
Havoc 3y ago
At that level of strategic usefulness ownership stops mattering if shit hits the fan. It'll simply get commandeered.
lannisterstark 3y ago
Like all other US defense companies, why not? Do you think US Navy produces their own ships?
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The distinction here is that ships are built by nongovernmental private enterprises, whilst Starlink is operated by a nongovernmental private enterprise. With a somewhat volatile executive. Which isn't unprecedented. But it's also far from the equivalence your comment suggests.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    The US military already uses commercial satellite communication systems.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      and commercial sensor system like 'Planet'. and commercial cargo transport. And lots of other stuff.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Note that, historically, the US Navy had plenty of its own shipyards, and did produce many of its own ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_shipyards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_sh... But that's mostly been "optimized away" in more-recent times, in the name of Capitalism and Campaign Donations.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    >did produce many of its own ships. Problem is that we're talking about how it works currently. US also used to send its own specifically owned spacecrafts into space. But it hasn't in ages.

A privately-held strategic advantage?

by bagful 3y ago

A privately-held strategic advantage?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

Offloading the risk on private players, reduces the amount of government investment required, and shields them from any criticism, should the project fail. Also, if it is that strategically important, the government can just buy SpaceX.

roywiggins 3y ago
They probably wouldn't have to buy them, if there's a war on they probably have enough legal tools to just require SpaceX to sell them whatever capabilities they have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950

roywiggins 3y ago

It doesn't really matter who owns it as long as it can be bent towards national goals when it matters. American vehicle manufacturing was a strategic advantage during WWII because they swiftly pivoted to selling tanks to the government instead of cars to civilians.

forgot-im-old 3y ago
It's already been bent towards missile defense https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

dotnet00 3y ago

Plenty of US strategic advantages are privately held or otherwise very dependent on the private sector. It's fine because the company can't really leave the US.

Havoc 3y ago

At that level of strategic usefulness ownership stops mattering if shit hits the fan. It'll simply get commandeered.

lannisterstark 3y ago

Like all other US defense companies, why not? Do you think US Navy produces their own ships?

dredmorbius 3y ago
The distinction here is that ships are built by nongovernmental private enterprises, whilst Starlink is operated by a nongovernmental private enterprise. With a somewhat volatile executive. Which isn't unprecedented. But it's also far from the equivalence your comment suggests.
- mlindner 3y ago
  The US military already uses commercial satellite communication systems.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    and commercial sensor system like 'Planet'. and commercial cargo transport. And lots of other stuff.
bell-cot 3y ago
Note that, historically, the US Navy had plenty of its own shipyards, and did produce many of its own ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_shipyards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_sh... But that's mostly been "optimized away" in more-recent times, in the name of Capitalism and Campaign Donations.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  >did produce many of its own ships. Problem is that we're talking about how it works currently. US also used to send its own specifically owned spacecrafts into space. But it hasn't in ages.